Jean Jouzel, a renowned French climatologist, is not optimistic about the changing climate and the level of mitigation efforts. But the scientist says people should should not give up on the fight against global warming. He explains the green deal, carbon markets, temperature rises and where the fight for a better environment stands now.
You previously said you hope that once Covid-19 passes, society would become more friendly to the environment.
Jean Jouzel: Unfortunately, this is not happening. Globally, carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise. They should stabilise over time, but that has not happened. Changes are taking place, but they are insufficient. Europe used to champion the ambitious Green Deal, but that ambition at a European level has faded.
So your optimism has gone?
When the Paris Climate Agreement was made in 2015, I was optimistic. But real progress is not being made. It is not that nothing at all has been done, but compared with the gravity of the problem, progress has been very slow. Many politicians focus only on how to adapt to climate change, which is important, but not enough.
Unless we have a good strategy and do something big by around 2040, it will be difficult to achieve carbon neutrality by the end of the century, essential to stabilising the climate.
Read more
EU states back one-year methane delay, but leave door open for more
What will this mean?
The people who are young today will live on a continuously warming planet. It is difficult to grasp that what we do over the next 15 years will have effects after such a long delay in the second half of this century.
Politicians say we have time; they argue that young people are so proficient in working with artificial intelligence that they will somehow solve the problem. But sea level rise cannot be stopped. By doing nothing, we are taking an enormous risk.
We live in a highly unstable, warring world. Does it make sense to pursue climate change mitigation now?
At an international level, I genuinely do not see solidarity between states. Clearly, the world is turning away from climate policies. And without mutual solidarity, we cannot stop global warming. So I cannot be optimistic.
Read more
Climate inaction could cost Europe €5.6 trillion by 2050, study finds
Even those who recognise the gravity of the problem say: let us not push the climate agenda now, because we are only playing into the hands of extremist political forces such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) or the National Rally in France. Let us not talk about the climate, because we are endangering the future of democracy itself. What do you think?
We must stress the benefits of climate change mitigation, like human health through cleaner air, and economic growth.
Over the next decade, the economy should be built around a transition to a different way of operating: economic systems based on carbon and fossil fuels will shift towards systems based on achieving carbon neutrality.
Take the electric car: it is an interesting technology. There is no reason to continue relying on transport based on the internal combustion engine. China is doing a great deal in this respect and is moving in the right direction. Europe is not.
We should have been the ones setting the pace. Economic growth can be built on the shift to electric cars. Or take the retrofitting and thermal insulation of buildings, which will have positive effects both on the economy and on human health. During the summer, 8,000 died in France because of the heat, and 17,000 in Germany. When heat waves are so severe, it is very difficult to live in cities. The issue of climate change cannot be separated from everyday life. It is not only about the environment, but also about the economy.
But how can people be persuaded? There is an enormous amount of disinformation surrounding the climate.
The spread of misinformation is made easier by social media, which are so popular among young people. Climate change scepticism also arises from this. It is difficult to fight. A false message is easy to spread, but defending against it and putting forward counterarguments is difficult. At a certain point, I gave up on the idea that we could convince 100 percent of the population. It is enough to win over a majority — and that should not be impossible.
Read more
What is ‘coordinated inauthentic behaviour’ – and how is it distorting Europe’s online democracy?
People can see that something is happening to the climate. We must continue presenting our arguments to them, explaining how greenhouse-gas emissions are affected by everyday activities. If we do nothing, we will face very serious consequences in the second half of the century. It will be difficult, because climate sceptics have one huge advantage: they claim that we can continue our way of life and not worry about the climate – a very appealing idea. But if you believe there is a problem, it makes you concerned.
So how should we deal with this?
As I said, we should stress that the transition to a more sustainable way of life will bring us many benefits. Energy is at the heart of this transition. Transport and the thermal insulation of buildings are also important, but energy is where we need to start.
In your native France, do emissions taxes under the ETS2 system provoke concerns over fuel prices?
The increase in fuel prices was enormous in France, but one public response has been increased purchases of electric cars. In September, electric vehicles accounted for 40 percent of new sales. At the beginning of the year, it was only 28 percent. That is a major change. People are not buying electric cars because of the climate, but because of high petrol and diesel prices. I am afraid, however, that once prices fall, people will start returning to internal combustion engines. Prices influence their behaviour more than concern for the climate.
Read more
Compromise over chaos? How MEPs gutted Europe’s new carbon price before it even began
But the electricity for cars must be generated without emissions. Which technology is most promising? Renewables? Nuclear power?
In France, we generate most of our electricity from nuclear power, around 70 percent, but renewables are developing rapidly. If we want to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, we must develop both: build new nuclear power plants while expanding renewables as quickly as possible.
Once you have a nuclear power plant that has been built, the electricity it produces is very cheap. But if you are only planning to build one, it is very expensive. Isn’t solar and wind power better?
High costs are indeed the biggest obstacle to the expansion of nuclear energy. By contrast, the costs of renewables are continually falling. On the other hand, they require strengthening the electricity grid in order to balance out the fluctuations in their electricity generation. That also costs money. This is why I believe we need a mix of both technologies.
Although the climate measures adopted have slowed global warming, the world is still heading towards warming of almost three degrees Celsius by 2100. What will that world look like?
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership